Geoffrey Keating wrote: > On 06/06/2006, at 4:58 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> Geoffrey Keating wrote: >>> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>>> Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Devang" == Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>> Devang> This version removes internal radar numbers and replaces s/ >>>>> Devang> DW_AT_APPLE.../DW_AT_GNU... >>>>> >>>>> I read this. I'm not anywhere near an expert in dwarf or anything >>>>> related to this proposal, so please bear with me if I say something >>>>> dumb :-). >>>>> >>>>> I do have a few questions and concerns. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In addition to Tom's concerns, it seems to me to be a *really bad >>>> idea* >>>> to try to come up with integer values for every single message, >>>> instead >>>> of just placing a string there. >>> One issue here is that this interacts poorly with >>> internationalization. >>> No matter what you do, you'll need to have a >>> table of possible strings somewhere, so you might as well save space >>> by not putting it in every object file. >> I believe this is a red herring. >> We control the debug output machinery generating this, and can simply >> tell it to only deal in one language. > > I'm not concerned about what goes into the .o file, but what gets > displayed on the screen. We cannot tell users to "deal in one > language". > You still need to be able to display the message for each number in all the languages you want, so it's going to be stored somewhere, you haven't solved the problem, just moved it completely to the consumer.
>> Trying to catalogue and assign a permanent place and number to every >> single optimization message a compiler can generate is a much much >> much >> worse idea, IMHO. > > Alternatively, we could put *every* supported language into the .o > file. But that bloats object files even more... I have a very hard time believing that compiling and outputting messages in one language, and having someone who can't read those messages optimize and profile your application in another language, is a significant enough use case to be worried about. You can disagree. I'm just trying to tell you this has almost zero hope of ever being standardized if you keep it as a bunch of numbers. It also has almost zero hope of working over multiple compiler versions, being future proof in general, and not having other compiler vendors fight over message number namespace. --Dan
